Search

To describe evolution and severity of radiographic findings and assess association with disease severity and outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.This retrospective study included 62 COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical data was obtained from electronic medical records. A total of 270 chest radiographs were reviewed and qualitatively scored (CXR score) using a severity scale of 0-30. Radiographic findings were correlated with clinical severity and outcome.The CXR score increases from a median initial score of 10 at hospital presentation to the median peak CXR score of 18 within a median time of 4 days after hospitalization, and then slowly decreases to a median last CXR score of 15 in a median time of 12 days after hospitalization. The initial and peak CXR score was independently associated with invasive MV after adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities (Initial, odds ratio [OR]: 2.11 per 5-point increase, confidence interval [CI] 1.35-3.32, P= 0.001; Peak, OR: 2.50 per 5-point increase, CI 1.48-4.22, P= 0.001). Peak CXR scores were also independently associated with vasopressor usage (OR: 2.28 per 5-point increase, CI 1.30-3.98, P= 0.004). Peak CXR scores strongly correlated with the duration of invasive MV (Rho = 0.62, P0.001), while the initial CXR score (Rho = 0.26) and the peak CXR score (Rho = 0.27) correlated weakly with the sequential organ failure assessment score. No statistically significant associations were found between radiographic findings and mortality.Evolution of radiographic features indicates rapid disease progression and correlate with requirement for invasive MV or vasopressors but not mortality, which suggests potential nonpulmonary pathways to death in COVID-19.

Respiratory conditions account for a large proportion of health care spending in the United States (US). A full characterization of spending across multiple conditions and over time has not been performed.To estimate US health care spending for 11 respiratory conditions from 1996-2016, providing detailed trends and an evaluation of factors associated with spending growth.We extracted data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation's Disease Expenditure Project Database, producing annual estimates in spending for 38 age and sex groups, 7 types of care, and 3 payer types. We performed a decomposition analysis to estimate the change in spending that is associated with changes in each of five factors (population growth, population aging, disease prevalence, service utilization, and service price and intensity).Total spending across all respiratory conditions in 2016 was $170.8 billion (95% CI $164.2-$179.2 billion), increasing by $71.7 billion (95% CI $63.2-$80.8 billion) from 1996. The respiratory conditions with the highest spending in 2016 were asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), contributing $35.5 billion (95% CI $32.4-$38.2 billion) and $34.3 billion (95% CI $31.5-$37.3 billion), respectively. Increasing service price and intensity were associated with 81.4% (95% CI 70.3-93.0%) growth from 1996 to 2016.US spending on respiratory conditions is high, particularly for chronic conditions like asthma and COPD. Our findings suggest that service price and intensity, particularly for pharmaceuticals, should be a key focus of attention for policy makers seeking to reduce health care spending growth. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Rationale: No direct comparisons of clinical features, laboratory values, and outcomes between critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and patients with influenza in the United ...

Rationale: Hypoxemia associated with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often resolves with time. Current guidelines recommend that patients recently discharged with supplemental home oxygen after hospitalization should not have renewal of the prescription without assessment for hypoxemia. Understanding patterns of home oxygen reassessment is an opportunity to improve quality and value in home oxygen prescribing and may provide future targets for deimplementation. Objectives: We sought to measure the frequency of home oxygen reassessment within 90 days of hospitalization for COPD and determine the potential population eligible for deimplementation. Methods: We performed a cohort study of patients ≥40 years hospitalized for COPD at five Veterans Affairs facilities who were prescribed home oxygen at discharge. Our primary outcome was the frequency of reassessment within 90 days by oxygen saturation (Sp(O(2))) measurement. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients potentially eligible for discontinuation (Sp(O(2)) > 88%) and patients in whom oxygen was discontinued. Our primary exposures were treatment with long-acting bronchodilators, prior history of COPD exacerbation, smoking status, and pulmonary hypertension. We used a mixed-effects Poisson model to measure the association between patient-level variables and our outcome, clustered by site. We also performed a positive deviant analysis using chart review to uncover system processes associated with high-quality oxygen prescribing. Results: A total of 287 of 659 (43.6%; range 24.8–78.5% by site) patients had complete reassessment within 90 days. None of our patient-level exposures were associated with oxygen reassessment. Nearly half of those with complete reassessment were eligible for discontinuation on the basis of Medicare guidelines (43.2%; n = 124/287). When using the newest evidence available by the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial, most of the cohort did not have resting hypoxemia (84.3%; 393/466) and would be eligible for discontinuation. The highest-performing Veterans Affairs facility had four care processes to support oxygen reassessment and discontinuation, versus zero to one at all other sites. Conclusions: Fewer than half of patients prescribed home oxygen after a COPD exacerbation are reassessed within 90 days. New system processes supporting timely reassessment and discontinuation of unnecessary home oxygen therapy could improve the quality and value of care.

In-person visits with a trained therapist have been standard care for patients initiating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). These visits provide an opportunity for hands-on training and an in-person assessment of mask fit. However, to improve access, many health systems are shifting to remote CPAP initiation with equipment mailed to patients. While there are potential benefits of a mailed approach, relative patient outcomes are unclear. Specifically, many have concerns that a lack of in-person training may contribute to reduced CPAP adherence. To inform this knowledge gap, we aimed to compare treatment usage after in-person or mailed CPAP initiation.Our medical center shifted from in-person to mailed CPAP dispensation in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assembled a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who initiated CPAP in the months before (n = 433) and after (n = 186) this shift. We compared 90-day adherence between groups.Mean nightly PAP usage was modest in both groups (in-person 145.2, mailed 140.6 min/night). We did not detect between-group differences in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (adjusted difference - 0.2 min/night, 95% - 27.0 to + 26.5).Mail-based systems of CPAP initiation may be able to improve access without reducing CPAP usage. Future work should consider the impact of mailed CPAP on patient-reported outcomes and the impact of different remote setup strategies.

ObjectivesDiabetes is the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years in Mexico, and cost-effective care models are needed to address the epidemic. We sought to evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of a novel community-based model of diabetes care in rural Mexico, compared with usual care.DesignWe performed time-driven activity-based costing to estimate annualised costs associated with typical diabetes care in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as a novel diabetes care model known as Compañeros En Salud Programa de Enfermedades Crónicas (CESPEC). We conducted Markov chain analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with usual care from a societal perspective. We used patient outcomes from CESPEC in 2016, as well as secondary data from existing literature.SettingRural primary care clinics in Chiapas, Mexico.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes.InterventionsCESPEC is a novel, comprehensive, diabetes care model that integrates community health workers, provider education, supply chain management and active case finding.Outcome measureThe primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with care as usual, per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed in 2016 US dollars.ResultsThe economic cost of the CESPEC diabetes model was US$144 per patient per year, compared with US$125 for diabetes care as usual. However, CESPEC care was associated with 0.13 additional years of health-adjusted life expectancy compared with usual care and 0.02 additional years in the first 5 years of treatment. This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$2981 per QALY gained over a patient’s lifetime and an ICER of US$10 444 over the first 5 years. Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsCESPEC is a cost-effective, community-based model of diabetes care for patients in rural Mexico. Given the high prevalence and significant morbidity associated with diabetes in Mexico and other countries in Central America, this model should be considered for broader scale up and evaluation.

Rationale: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not first-line therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low risk of exacerbations, but they are commonly prescribed despite evidence of harm. We consider ICS prescription in this population to be of “low value.” The association of low-value ICS with subsequent healthcare utilization and costs is unknown. Understanding this relationship could inform efforts to reduce the delivery of low-value care. Objectives: To determine whether low-value ICS prescribing is associated with higher outpatient healthcare utilization and costs among patients with COPD who are at low risk of exacerbation. Methods: We performed a cohort study between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identifying a cohort of veterans with COPD who performed pulmonary function tests (PFTs) at 21 Veterans Affairs medical centers nationwide. Patients were defined as having low exacerbation risk if they experienced less than two outpatient exacerbations and no hospital admissions for COPD in the year before PFTs. Our primary exposure was the receipt of an ICS prescription in the 3 months before the date of PFTs. Our primary outcomes were outpatient utilization and outpatient costs in the 1 year after PFTs. For inference, we generated negative binomial models for utilization and generalized linear models for costs, adjusting for confounders. Results: We identified a total of 31,551 patients with COPD who were at low risk of exacerbation. Of these patients, 9,742 were prescribed low-value ICS (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age, 69 [9] yr), and 21,809 were not prescribed low-value ICS (mean [SD] age, 68 [9] yr). Compared with unexposed patients, those exposed to low-value ICS had 0.53 more encounters per patient per year (95% confidence interval CI, 0.23–0.83) and incurred $154.72 higher costs/patient/year (95% CI, $45.58–$263.86). Conclusions: Low-value ICS prescription was associated with higher subsequent outpatient healthcare utilization and costs. Potential mechanisms for the observed association are that 1) low-value ICS may be a marker of poor respiratory symptom control, 2) there is confounding by indication, or 3) low-value ICS results in increased drug costs or utilization. Health systems should identify low-value ICS prescriptions as a target to improve value-based care.

Introduction Initiating treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) traditionally relies on in-person visits with trained therapists to provide hands-on instruction regarding CPAP usage and mask fit. To overcome geographic barriers and reduce COVID-19 transmission, health systems increasingly rely on remote set-ups of mailed equipment. Despite a strong rationale for the mailed approach, relative effectiveness is unclear. Methods Our VA medical center shifted from in-person to mailed CPAP dispensation during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Using VA administrative and wireless CPAP usage data, we assembled a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who initiated CPAP for the first time from July 2019 to August 2020. Our primary outcome was mean nightly usage over the first 90 days. We compared patients with in-person vs. mailed CPAP dispensation using generalized linear models adjusted for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Among patients with >1 hour of overall usage, we compared secondary outcomes of leak, apnea hypopnea index (AHI), and obstructive/central apnea indices. Results We identified 693 patients with newly diagnosed OSA whose CPAP was provided in-person and 296 who had CPAP mailed. Nightly usage in the first 90 days was modest in both groups (in-person: 149.7, mailed: 152.9 min/night), and we did not detect a difference in adjusted models (+7.6 min/night, 95%CI -13.6–28.8). We also did not detect a difference in 95th percentile leak (-1.2 liter/minute, 95%CI -3.3-0.9). Device-detected AHI was relatively low overall (in-person: 3.2, mailed: 4.1 events/hour), but was greater in the mailout group (+1.0/hour, 95%CI 0.2–1.7). AHI differences appeared to be driven by obstructive (+0.5/hour, 95%CI 0.2–0.8) but not central events (-0.1, 95% CI -0.2–0.4). Risk of AHI>5 was comparable between groups (in-person: 17.3%, mailed: 19.0%, OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8–1.7). Conclusion We were able to switch from an in-person to a mail-based system of CPAP initiation without a change in CPAP adherence or mask leak. While AHI was slightly greater in the mailed group, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Future work will need to evaluate the impact of remote CPAP dispensation on patient-centered outcomes. Support (if any) VA Health Services Research and Development, CDA 18–187